from district 3 description? mr. schreiber: russian hill community association. mr. mcdonnell: ok. proposal to eliminate. any objection? ok. mr. pilpel: proposed to eliminate middle polk. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to elimination? ok. we will eliminate middle polk. the elementary school, a proposal to eliminate. any objection? ok. thank you. district 4.

any additions to district 4 description? >> for those districts that are less than the deviation, are we treating it in the same way? we are referencing it, but it is not the same? we will include the same language? >> yes, sir. i would suggest adding parkside and outer parkside.

mr. mcdonnell: any objection? are those real or fictitious? no. i see discussion happening. >> there is a comment that it might be in both district 4 and the district 7. park side? >> we don't have a submission. erring on the conservative side, we will not include park side --

parkside. outer parkside? >> there is also no submission. mr. mcdonnell: it will remain as submitted. you want to vote? let's vote, please. >> we just located parkside. mr. mcdonnell: that is fine. we are voting. mr. alonso: no. mr. leigh: no. ms. melara: no. ms. lam: no. ms. mondejar: no. mr. schreiber: no. ms. tidwell: the group has spoken. no. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. moving to district 5.

additions to district 5? >> can i ask a question of the city attorney and whether the consultant definition specifically around that japan town fillmore areas, is that sufficient for the neighborhood versus listing japan town somewhere? do we list out those institutions? >> in terms of recognize neighborhoods, we reference them both in the neighborhoods. i don't think -- it is helpful to have documented. those institutions are part of the neighborhood. i don't think we need to list them separately here. >> there is an item proposed --

i think there is sufficient public testimony to support what those institutions are. mr. mcdonnell: and be consistent with the use of neighborhoods versus institutions. we remove the institutions. ok. we remove the institutions. we will include japan town- fillmore. north of panhandle association, include? it is not an area. it is an association. mr. pilpel: i suggest replacing"nopa" with north of the panhandle. mr. mcdonnell: if you eliminate the institutions, you have eliminated the disk -- the descriptions from the task force. referring in this case to bthe

submission, -- >> i would just propose -- never mind. i will stop talking. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. pilpel: i suggest replacing nopa. i would add cole valley. we can discuss lower hataight. mr. mcdonnell: objection to japan town-fillmore? objection to the north of panhandle?

objection to cole valley? all right. there will be three neighborhoods listed or recognized in d 5. can we -- >> can we keep in those listed here? mr. mcdonnell: ok. the proposal to list each of them. any objection to listing them? any objection? we move forward. district 6.

from the consultants, we remove all of those. referring to ms. tidwell's list. >> we left the tenderloin out entirely. that was one of our primary concerns. mr. mcdonnell: we are on 6 now. so, tenderloin. >> we look at district consultants now? where are we? mr. mcdonnell: we are on district 6. this is the consultants lists list association. all of those will come off. we will now refer to ms. tidwell's list.

mission bay, south beach, rincon hill, treasure island, filipino community, and the tenderloin just added by ms. melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling.

replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what?

>> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- recognized neighborhood? >> that was a public submission boundary. mr. mcdonnell: what is the first letter? >> p. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it is a p. >> excuse my spelling error. >> that is why we are editing. mr. mcdonnell: ok. again, we have selma, treasure island, mission bay --

>> i combined the list. i hate -- -- i have -- mr. mcdonnell: i thought we agreed, no institutions? >> yes. ok. mr. mcdonnell: south beach, rincon hill. any additions? >> there was a public submission about this was the reason for the line. >> there is no publicly- submitted neighborhood boundaries for yerba buena. there is not a boundary from

planned neighborhoods. mr. pilpel: i think this is referring to treasure island and yerba buena island, not yerba buena center. >> they are recommending it as a neighborhood based on public testimony, as i recall. mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to list yerba buena. >> maybe it was one of the colored maps. mr. mcdonnell: then we will not list it. any objection? mr. pilpel: i would separate

them, but i don't care that strongly. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to adding central waterfront? >> i thought it was part of the dog patch. mr. mcdonnell: we will not add. moving -- we are not moving. >> did i hear this call likely from the consultants that there is no neighborhood called yerba buena? >> not a publicly submitted neighborhood. >> it seems to me it is common knowledge where it is. mr. mcdonnell: we agreed to err on the conservative side. for purposes of reporting and listing, we will not include it. mr. pilpel: can i ask for a vote or whatever we are doing here on

come binding -- combining these to instead read "south of market"? i think that is more of a generally recognized neighborhood. i'm concerned the other name is not a recognized neighborhood in the way that these others are. that is all. >> it is a planning department- approved neighborhood. it is historical. mr. pilpel: it is a sub area within south of market. mr. alonso: are we in agreement that we know where it exists? mr. mcdonnell: i believe so. mr. alonso: and i'm pretty sure it does not matter. mr. mcdonnell: mr. pilpel has

proposed it. mr. pilpel: i would probably be ok with it as is. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to the insertion? ok. that includes district 6. only five more to go. >> this is long. mr. mcdonnell: district 7. so -- ms. tidwell: this gets to the consultants point that i listed out all of the neighborhoods and they just included them as

listed in the [mumbling] boundaries. mr. mcdonnell: i am not sure what your point was. ms. tidwell: just explaining the difference. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. beginning with the consultants. let's go the other way around. any deletions? jamie? are there any of these that we should not list? >> i do not believe so.

i think this is a great list. mr. mcdonnell: you think this is a great list? all in favor? all: aye. >> if they have submitted their boundaries, also a list of neighborhoods that are included in the central council, then i think this is representative of those neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: ok. any objection to leading the list as is? -- leaving the list as is? mr. pilpel: do we need to add san francisco state university? mr. mcdonnell: no institutions. mr. pilpel: i would add lake merced. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? if jamie says it is recognized,

we will list. >> it is based on the department of elections definition. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: did we add clinton heights -- clarington heights? not the whole thing? park merced? mr. mcdonnell: ok. we are not attempting to create an exhaustive list. this is one that does not need as a vacation. district 8. -- need justification. district 8. >> i would combine diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: you would

combine? >> just diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. leigh: i would strike open house and lgbt community center. mr. mcdonnell: removing them from this list. any additions? mr. pilpel: i am looking at it. it is changing.

>> i withdraw the comment. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so, we have -- can -- >> can i suggest eureka valley? ms. tidwell: i just deleted eureka valley. some of those are encompassed with what the other neighborhoods are. mr. pilpel: i don't think i agree with that. i think eureka valley is in district 8. >> adding eureka valley.

mr. mcdonnell: there is no need to create an exhaustive list. mr. pilpel: ok. all right. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? moving then to d 9. mr. pilpel: i would suggest vernal heights. mr. mcdonnell: objections? >> i will turn this over to the consultant. >> there is no publicly cemented neighborhood boundary. -- publicly submitted neighborhood boundaries.

it is split in the department of elections. >> i am willing to call it north and south. it is in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? >> looking at the -- is this planning more elections? looking at the planning department map, the corners have been moved into district 8. that is the this is the area between cesar chavez and south of randall, between mission and san jose avenue. that is just according to the planning.

mr. mcdonnell: ok. so we have one neighborhood list aed. anyone else. all right, moving into district 10. again, the note on the consultants listing gets eliminated, but and the reference to san francisco general hospital eliminated, therefore we have silver terrace, this the valley, the or hollywood, bay view heights, bayview, hunters point, the central waterfront, dog patch. jamie, of those, which should be eliminated because we do not

have recognized neighborhoods or public submission? >> we did not have visitation, i believe the same is true of bayview hunters point. mr. pilpel: i would still include them. i think we should recognize them. and i think we should still candlestick properly -- we should spell candlestick properly. >> i don't know if they gave specific boundaries, and is that why it is not recognized? i believe we have kept that as a whole. >> sorry, i believe bayview, hunters point, i was incorrect about that. it should be listed. mr. pilpel: and i think potrero

is potrero. mr. mcdonnell: bayview, hunters point is fine. >> it is split according to the the department of elections, the planning neighborhood, as submitted. mr. mcdonnell: it is not included? i'm sorry, let's go back, silver terrace days in. visitation valley? >> no. mr. mcdonnell: does not stay in. little hollywood? ms. lee? so there is still confusion. be conservative, air on the side of exclusion, which is where i thought the land? >> yes, to all of the above. it is your call to make.

it is fine if it is the basis of public testimony, but i would encourage you to err on the side of being conservative. this is not supposed to represent all neighborhoods, it is suppose to be ones where you have to recognize the neighborhoods intact in their entirety. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. pilpel: to that end, i think all of candlestick is in 10, and i would add showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: again, we don't need an exhaustive list. it is actually even under 1%. all of that said, any objection to candlestick? silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick, spelled correctly -- mr. pilpel: out include civista valley. sorry.

-- i would include at vista valid. sorry. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to the list as presented here? mr. pilpel: yes. mr. mcdonnell: ok. go ahead. mr. pilpel: ok. what are you proposing it is in? mr. mcdonnell: propose what you want, it does not matter. mr. pilpel: silver terrace, candlestick, the central waterfront/dog patch, showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: any objection? it ms. tidwell: yes. i was attempting to be helpful by adding neighborhoods. with 16th street, i don't think we have included potrero, and

the ones we have highlighted with issues. mr. mcdonnell: okay, that is what objection. ok, list them off. one more time. >> silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick. ms. tidwell: isn't candlestick -- isn't that an institution? >> i think there is a candlestick neighborhood. ms. tidwell: you think, or there is? >> ok, we will exclude candlestick. bayview hunters point, potrero hill, and showplace square. ms. tidwell: i don't think -- sorry, what ever. ms. lam: i think there are concerns including potrero hill